12 ms·

When the tree dies, it will release 99% of the stored carbon back to the atmosphere. Unless you bury the tree in an anaerobic environment or treat it in some o

by _rpd 7y ago

When the tree dies, it will release 99% of the stored carbon back to the atmosphere. Unless you bury the tree in an anaerobic environment or treat it in some other way, the tree is just a time-delayed release mechanism. New forest can store a buffer in perpetuity, e.g., a new trillion trees can store 133 Gt. But current emissions are > 40 Gt/year, so this is < 4 years worth of emissions.

duckymcduckface 7y ago
Makes me wonder if in the future the solution will be to create synthetic crude and pump it back into the ground.
- tim333 7y ago
  Or just: >Once the trees reach maturity, farmers harvest their wood for use in houses or musical instruments as in the article. You could make chunky log cabin type buildings to use more. I'd quite like a log mansion.
- plutonorm 7y ago
  Maybe this is where the oil came from In the first place. A desperate attempt to dump co2 by a doomed civilisation in the deep past. Obviously not, but could make a good short story :)
- youngtaff 7y ago
  Make charcoal and then bury it
- marcusverus 7y ago
  It definitely seems like the ideal solution is bacterial sequestration of carbon into some inert, non-toxic, storable chemical.
inetknght 7y ago
> When the tree dies, it will release 99% of the stored carbon back to the atmosphere. It's not the tree which does that. It's the organisms consuming the tree during the decomposition process which do that. And that doesn't happen all at once. Indeed, if you grow another tree then you're likely to still be net-positive. If you use the tree for other purposes -- construction, for example. Or burning for energy production -- then it becomes a useful part of the lifecycle.
- ska 7y ago
  > Or burning for energy production Doesn't that just release the C02 again? Construction purposes might help, or any other way of sequestering.
  - ac29 7y ago
    Yes, but its net-zero carbon, so still an improvement over using fossil fuels.
    - robocat 7y ago
      Net-zero CO2. Probably other factors are small, but hard to predict (particulates, volatile chemicals, other effects of growth). Might be positive or negative.
    - ska 7y ago
      Fair, so that implies it doesn't really help, but at least isn't actively making things worse.
lostlogin 7y ago
There is a guy here who cuts them down and regrows them from the stumps, selling the timber and feeding stock with the leaves and small branches. Presumably this increases the carbon capture. https://thisnzlife.co.nz/how-a-small-waikato-farm-harnesses-the-power-of-paulownia-the-fastest-growing-tree-in-the-world/ https://thisnzlife.co.nz/how-a-small-waikato-farm-harnesses-...
- quixoticelixer- 7y ago
  Ironically the stored CO2 destroyed the 'civilisation' that fixed it in the first place

by _rpd 7y ago

duckymcduckface 7y ago

Makes me wonder if in the future the solution will be to create synthetic crude and pump it back into the ground.

tim333 7y ago
Or just: >Once the trees reach maturity, farmers harvest their wood for use in houses or musical instruments as in the article. You could make chunky log cabin type buildings to use more. I'd quite like a log mansion.
plutonorm 7y ago
Maybe this is where the oil came from In the first place. A desperate attempt to dump co2 by a doomed civilisation in the deep past. Obviously not, but could make a good short story :)
youngtaff 7y ago
Make charcoal and then bury it
marcusverus 7y ago
It definitely seems like the ideal solution is bacterial sequestration of carbon into some inert, non-toxic, storable chemical.

inetknght 7y ago

> When the tree dies, it will release 99% of the stored carbon back to the atmosphere. It's not the tree which does that. It's the organisms consuming the tree during the decomposition process which do that. And that doesn't happen all at once. Indeed, if you grow another tree then you're likely to still be net-positive. If you use the tree for other purposes -- construction, for example. Or burning for energy production -- then it becomes a useful part of the lifecycle.

ska 7y ago
> Or burning for energy production Doesn't that just release the C02 again? Construction purposes might help, or any other way of sequestering.
- ac29 7y ago
  Yes, but its net-zero carbon, so still an improvement over using fossil fuels.
  - robocat 7y ago
    Net-zero CO2. Probably other factors are small, but hard to predict (particulates, volatile chemicals, other effects of growth). Might be positive or negative.
  - ska 7y ago
    Fair, so that implies it doesn't really help, but at least isn't actively making things worse.

lostlogin 7y ago

There is a guy here who cuts them down and regrows them from the stumps, selling the timber and feeding stock with the leaves and small branches. Presumably this increases the carbon capture. https://thisnzlife.co.nz/how-a-small-waikato-farm-harnesses-the-power-of-paulownia-the-fastest-growing-tree-in-the-world/ https://thisnzlife.co.nz/how-a-small-waikato-farm-harnesses-...

quixoticelixer- 7y ago
Ironically the stored CO2 destroyed the 'civilisation' that fixed it in the first place